I think New Zealand has a great example of how historically socialist political organizations have integrated a capitalist economy in a way that still continues to promote the welfare of their people.
Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland… these are the leaders in this index. How? A high-welfare free market economy.
This is basically capitalism but with high taxes using examples like net wealth tax.
Also, it’s not fair to use a statistic like 90% approval rating. The state controls all the data and media. That’s like trump saying he’s the best that ever lived. Okay, but that’s not actually true!
New Zealand is not socialist, it’s a part of the western empire and subsidizes its safety nets off of the plunder of the global south. Same with the Nordics. They all rely on it. Secondly, the 90% approval rating is fair and valid. Socialist systems need to own their own press, and not allow private capitalists to steer the narrative.
As a Norwegian, I find it pretty funny that this guy keeps bringing up my country as an example to be followed, while at the same time using anecdotes he (supposedly) heard from Chinese people to prove that China is bad.
Why? For the simple fact that Norway produced someone like Anders Breivik. If anecdotes are now evidence, then I suppose that Breivik’s claims of how Norway functions must be taken seriously, rather than be dismissed as the ravings of a mass murdering fascist. And he’s not alone in his beliefs either, I’ve seen and heard some variation of “I don’t agree with his actions, but his manifesto does have some really good points” more times than I can count. Must all be true then, right?
And by the way, the 90% approval number actually comes from a study done by Harvard University, not from the CPC. But I suppose comrade Xi is personally controlling Harvard now lmao
Yep, the stubborn reliance on anecdote above all else is terrible for accuracy, and despite everyone telling them that the 90% approval number is from western polling, they still doubled down. It’s borderline if not trolling.
New Zealand has tons of socialist influence and has had many many socialist political organizations influencing their politics for decades.
I know they are not socialist, but it’s am example of a free market economy with that necessary socialist influence. (Although, I think they are starting to crumble since their economy is so attached to foreign nations, it’s pretty unfortunate)
I will say the only way for the people to truly control anything is for them to have a vote on each decision. If they are not voting on the media, they do not control it. It would be amazing if ownership of your government and economy included actual decision making on the individual - collective level.
A small group of leaders can’t relate to their people’s interests on an individual level in a way that perfectly executes their will. It’s impossible.
No, but it’s a good way to curb capitalism’s negative impacts. The US postal service is great scale. Medicare is another. Taxing the rich and expanding social programs is the correct way to evolve capitalism. Proven by how Reagan and Bush (sr and jr) and Trump have tried to disrupt successful programs with the intent of privatizing.
I’m glad you bright this up because this one of the markers I would use for a “good” system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_Human_Development_Index
The Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index.
I think New Zealand has a great example of how historically socialist political organizations have integrated a capitalist economy in a way that still continues to promote the welfare of their people.
Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland… these are the leaders in this index. How? A high-welfare free market economy.
This is basically capitalism but with high taxes using examples like net wealth tax.
Also, it’s not fair to use a statistic like 90% approval rating. The state controls all the data and media. That’s like trump saying he’s the best that ever lived. Okay, but that’s not actually true!
New Zealand is not socialist, it’s a part of the western empire and subsidizes its safety nets off of the plunder of the global south. Same with the Nordics. They all rely on it. Secondly, the 90% approval rating is fair and valid. Socialist systems need to own their own press, and not allow private capitalists to steer the narrative.
As a Norwegian, I find it pretty funny that this guy keeps bringing up my country as an example to be followed, while at the same time using anecdotes he (supposedly) heard from Chinese people to prove that China is bad.
Why? For the simple fact that Norway produced someone like Anders Breivik. If anecdotes are now evidence, then I suppose that Breivik’s claims of how Norway functions must be taken seriously, rather than be dismissed as the ravings of a mass murdering fascist. And he’s not alone in his beliefs either, I’ve seen and heard some variation of “I don’t agree with his actions, but his manifesto does have some really good points” more times than I can count. Must all be true then, right?
And by the way, the 90% approval number actually comes from a study done by Harvard University, not from the CPC. But I suppose comrade Xi is personally controlling Harvard now lmao
Yep, the stubborn reliance on anecdote above all else is terrible for accuracy, and despite everyone telling them that the 90% approval number is from western polling, they still doubled down. It’s borderline if not trolling.
New Zealand has tons of socialist influence and has had many many socialist political organizations influencing their politics for decades.
I know they are not socialist, but it’s am example of a free market economy with that necessary socialist influence. (Although, I think they are starting to crumble since their economy is so attached to foreign nations, it’s pretty unfortunate)
I will say the only way for the people to truly control anything is for them to have a vote on each decision. If they are not voting on the media, they do not control it. It would be amazing if ownership of your government and economy included actual decision making on the individual - collective level.
A small group of leaders can’t relate to their people’s interests on an individual level in a way that perfectly executes their will. It’s impossible.
Social programs are not socialism.
No, but it’s a good way to curb capitalism’s negative impacts. The US postal service is great scale. Medicare is another. Taxing the rich and expanding social programs is the correct way to evolve capitalism. Proven by how Reagan and Bush (sr and jr) and Trump have tried to disrupt successful programs with the intent of privatizing.
Social programs are good, sure, but socialism is still necessary and the countries you posit are good all rely on imperialism